06 La Mallorca v CA HELD:
G.R. No. L-20761; July 27, 1966
PETITIONER: LA MALLORCA
RESPONDENT: HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIANO
BELTRAN, ET AL
PONENTE: BARRERA
FACTS:
1. Mariano Beltran together with his wife and their children Milagros (14
y/o), Raquel (4) and Fe (2) boarded a Pambusco bus owned by La
Mallorca.1
2. It stopped at Anao where the Beltran Family and other passengers got
off. After leading his family to a shaded spot (around 5 meters away),
Mariano returned to the bus to gather a bag left behind.
3. Unnoticed, his daughter Raquel followed him.
4. Mariano went up the running board while waiting for the conductor to
hand him the bag which he left under a seat near the door.
5. Suddenly, the bus, whose motor was not shut off while unloading, started
to move forward even thought the conductor has not yet given the
customary go signal.
6. Sensing danger, Mariano left his bag and just jumped off the bus. His
daughter Raquel was run over.
7. TC: Defendant liable for BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; pay
P3k for the death of the child and P400 as compensatory damages.
8. CA: La Mallorca claimed that there could not be a breach of contract in
the case because when the child met her death, she was no longer a
passenger of the bus involved in the incident = contract of carriage
had already terminated.
a. **IMPT** CA sustained theory butfound the La Mallorca guilty
of quasi-delict and held liable for damages, for the
negligence of its driver (Art 2180)
ISSUE:
1. W/N CA erred in holding it liable for quasi-delict, considering that
respondents complaint was one for breach of contract. (YES)
W/N the relationship of carrier-passenger existed when the child
died (YES)
1
Extra Fact in case he asks: the conductor was Mariano Beltrans half brother and were issued
three tickets free (for spouses and eldest child); no fare was charged for the younger kids since
they were below height requirements. Might be important in relation to Art. 1758 Sec. 2.
Petitioner liable for damages for the death of the child.
FATHER: CARRIER = PASSENGER: CARRIER REL. SUBSISTING.
Father, after disembarking, went back to the vehicle (still at a stop) to get
his bag. The relationship does not necessarily cease where the latter
aids the carriers employee in removing his baggage.
CHILD: CARRIER = PASSENGER: CARRIER REL. SUSBSITING.
Child was led by his father 5m away from the bus.
Rel does not cease at the moment passenger alights from the carrier
BUT continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time/
opportunity to lease the carriers premises (depending on circumstances)
o Ex: Passenger walking along train platform is still a passenger
While Mariano was on board to get their bags, his child must have followed.
HOWEVER, bus started to run so that even Mariano had to jump down from
the moving bus. CHILD was then run over.
It cannot be claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised the
"UTMOST DILIGENCE" of a "VERY CAUTIONS PERSON" required
by Art 1755 to be observed by a common carrier.
(1)Driver, although stopping the bus, did not put off the engine;
(2) He started to run the bus even before the bus conductor
gave him the signal to go and while the latter was still unloading
part of the bags.
*IMPT* The presence of said passengers near the bus was not
unreasonable and they are STILL AS PASSENGERS of the carrier,
ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION UNDER THEIR CONTRACT OF
CARRIAGE.
ASSUMING THAT THE CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE WAS TERMINATED:
Petitioner can be held liable for the negligence of its driver (Art 2180) of the
Civil Code. Par 7 of complaint is an allegation for QUASI-DELICT;
although incompatible with the other claim under Contract of Carriage it is
PERMISSIBLE under ROC Rule 8 Sec 2.
 Allows to allege cause of action in the alternative, w/n compatible with
each other, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be
resolved and determined.

Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the culpa or negligence when it alleged "the

death of Raquel Beltran, plaintiffs' daughter, was caused by the
negligence and want of exercise of the utmost diligence of a very
cautious person on the part of the defendants and their agent."

Allegation was proved that driver, even before receiving the proper
signal from the conductor, and while there were still persons on the
running board of the bus and near it, started to run off the vehicle.

The presentation of proof of the negligence of its employee gave rise to

the presumption that the defendant employer did not exercise the
diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision
of its employees. (Failed to overcome presumption)